XPost: sci.space.policy   
   From: mp1walsh@Adelphia.net   
      
   Joe Strout wrote:   
      
   > In article <88d21cfd.0401250949.5ee27086@posting.google.com>,   
   >  edkyle99@hotmail.com (ed kyle) wrote:   
   >   
   > > The problem with this is that Proton has been the driver   
   > > of launch cost reduction in recent years.  With it out   
   > > of the picture, launch prices would rise from current   
   > > levels.  Since U.S. companies seem incapable of competing   
   > > in the commercial launch world market, Arianespace would   
   > > then, by default, get to decide how much NASA would have   
   > > to pay to launch each lunar mission.   
   >   
   > So you don't believe SpaceX will be able to deliver at their quoted   
   > prices ($6M for Falcon I, $12M for Falcon V)?   
      
   Just entering the discussion.   
      
   Proton is a bit bigger than either version of the Falcon.  The Falcon   
   competes with Orbital's launchers and if the Falcon I comes in at   
   the $6M quoted it should undercut their fixed base launchers.   
   Aerial launches still have some advantages in orbital flexibility.   
      
   The Russian launcher nearest to the Falcon class is Rokot and   
   I wonder how things will be if they ever run out of old missile   
   parts.   
      
   It remains to be seen whether Space-X can deliver consistently   
   at the prices they quote or whether they are quoting "loss leader"   
   prices.   
      
   Falcon V, I assume, will require a successful Falcon I.   
      
   SpaceX has shown the ability to provide funding in order to   
   get to its planned launch.  Is that the only difference between   
   them and Microcosm?  Microcosm has made a few test flights   
   but has not yet provided a vehicle.  They have been around   
   for quite a while.   
      
   SpaceX needs to provide us with a demonstration.  If the   
   first flight fails I hope they have the will and resources to   
   continue because many successful vehicles have progressed   
   past early failures.   
      
   > Also, I notice you didn't mention SeaLaunch -- I haven't looked at the   
   > numbers recently, but AIUI they're fairly cheap and can launch into   
   > pretty much any orbit you want.   
      
   As far as U.S. companies go we have both ILS and SeaLaunch,   
   and that in both cases is U.S. with an asterisk.   
      
   Mike Walsh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)